Richard’s Selected Correspondence
On Ms. Byron Katie
RESPONDENT: Douglass Harding, Byron Katie, Maximillian Sandor, bunches of folks in the ex-scientology camp (put ‘freezone’ into your search engine) are all, in their various ways, about using INSIGHT to deconstruct to iron grip of ego-self without getting caught up in the big SELF spiritualist experience of Ramana Maharshi, Bernadette Roberts, et al.
RICHARD: The following quotes may very well throw some light upon the matter:
RESPONDENT: You’re a bit of a researcher ... so good on ya!
RICHARD: All I did was provide some referenced quotes which, for anyone with access to an internet search engine and ten minutes or so to spare, can easily be found ... for example:
If doing the above, and similar for the other three quotes, constitutes being ‘a bit of a researcher’ in your eyes – and somehow deserving of a ‘good on ya!’ commendation – then all I can say is that the Dean of Students at ‘The New Mexico Institute for Buddhist Studies’, an American institution of religious learning to provide an accessible means of providing a foundation in Pure Land Buddhism, is all-too-easily pleased ... seeing that you are using his e-mail address perhaps you could draw his attention to the following? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: You say that you have yet to come across any such people in your long research. I believe that there are a number of people who have attained actual freedom but just use different terminology to you. The descriptions vary and the reports are coloured by cultural and personal influences but they are remarkably similar to what you report. I’ll offer up one example – Byron Katie.
RICHARD: It only took me about five minutes to locate the following: [Ms. Sunny Massad]: ‘And how was your relationship with your husband’s body? [Ms. Byron Katie]: ‘Uhhhh. [Sighs.] First time we made love it was just amaaazing. It was radical! Cuz it was God with God. And it was the receiving of it and the giving ah, it was just amazing! [endquotes]. There is/are no god, goddess, gods, or goddesses, here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: I think you’re too hung up on terminology.
RICHARD: Oh? When someone says they are [quote] ‘God with God’ [endquote] in what way am I ‘too hung up on terminology’ if I take that to mean they are saying they are God ... and then making the observation that there is no such ‘being’ or ‘presence’ (by whatever name) in actuality?
RESPONDENT: I use the word god from time to time but not in a personal-god sense.
RICHARD: That would be because you have not yet realised you are that ... whereas Ms. Byron Katie has and, consequently, has devised a method (presumably the four questions) to enable such self-realisation to come about in others.
RESPONDENT: I mean it in the sense of that which is greater than myself or reality.
RICHARD: That would appear to be the sense she means it in too ... that which is greater than the ego-self and the universe (meaning that which is a non-material – a timeless and spaceless and formless – source of everything).
RESPONDENT: You’ll find that Byron Katie has a similar understanding of the word. Some people say god, others use universe, nature etc. – you say ‘actual world’.
RICHARD: As I know perfectly well what I mean, wherever I refer to this actual world, it is an exercise in futility to try and tell me I am meaning something else entirely.
‘Tis no wonder you have your ‘bullshit’ detector activated ... because that is precisely what you are reading into my words.
RICHARD: As her book, which the ‘four questions’ are in, is called ‘Loving What Is’ then the word ‘Loving’ should surely be a big enough clue that it is not a book about an actual freedom from the human condition – the affections are non-existent here in this actual world – and the ‘What Is’ part of the title is the second giveaway that it is not actual (the phrase ‘Loving What Is’ can easily be translated as ‘God Loving God’).
RESPONDENT: Hmmm now that’s getting picky again.
RICHARD: I do find it fascinating that clarity in communication is regarded as ‘picky’.
RESPONDENT: Actually The ‘Loving’ in the title refers to accepting ‘what is’ which means accepting reality.
RICHARD: Ha ... are you really saying that Ms. Byron Katie should have titled her book like this? Vis.:
Here are you very own words (from above):
Why would a god-realised person write a book about accepting that which is not greater when there is that which is greater to love?
RESPONDENT: That comes clear when you read her book.
RICHARD: I have no intention whatsoever of reading yet another book by yet another god ... those days a long gone.
RESPONDENT: It doesn’t refer to mushy, sentimental, blind instinctual caring that you speak of.
RICHARD: As the term I use for the greatest love of all – Love Agapé – does not even remotely resemble ‘mushy, sentimental’ love you are having a discussion with yourself here.
RESPONDENT: BK just uses different language to you.
RICHARD: That would be because she is speaking about something different ... the term ‘What Is’ does not refer to this actual world.
RESPONDENT: At any rate (and this is important) the four questions in the method given (the Work) do NOT speak of god at all!
RICHARD: Why is that important? The actualism question does not speak of being a flesh and blood body only (sans identity/affections in toto) yet nobody is under any illusion about no longer being a such a ‘being’ or ‘presence’ within the body is what the method is for ... other than peoples like yourself of course.
RESPONDENT: I did go off [this mailing list a while back] in a bit of a huff. I was not a little frustrated with the interactions on this list. I have looked at my anger towards R/P/V and re-cognised its elemental roots in the same old same old.
RICHARD: Hmm ... so despite all your (borrowed) advice to others you actually do label the arising feeling/ emotion and analyse it, then?
RESPONDENT: Pretty damned presumptuous of me to expect them to understand what I was talking about.
RICHARD: Why? I, for one, understood what you were talking about ... just because it had nothing to do with the actualism that is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site does not mean I do not understand it.
RESPONDENT: Or thought I was talking about? Of course, this is one of the primary characteristics of my psychological makeup, high expectations of the universe and disappointment when it fails to deliver. Katie says ‘When you argue with reality, you lose. But only always.’ I’m feeling muuuuch better now.
RICHARD: If the ‘Katie’ you refer to is Ms. Byron Katie then the ‘reality’ she is speaking of is none other than God/Truth (and not ‘the universe’ you are, presumably, talking about having high expectations of).
The Third Alternative
(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)
Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.